re: Hi all/Trades

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

Yeah, I don't normally go in for trade speculation, but I agree, let's 
indulge Dubya for a bit.

> From: W <wwfjericho@iprimus.com.au>
>
> P.S. Two trade scenarios; McCarty + Blount + Forte + perhaps a pick to
> Chicago for Brad Miller

This one I kind of like, actually.  You get rid of two real 
non-contributors, (plus the energy you'd use to embarrass them in an 
attempt to motivate them -- it's a joke!  Calm down), and especially if 
the pick isn't necessary for this to go down, it's only really Forte and 
your backup center's backup you need to give up.  Not really sure what 
would be in it for the Bulls, though.  But then, who can really figure out 
Krause?  (I mean, beyond the inflated ego.)  Like Michael, though, I 
wouldn't want to give up on Forte just yet.  What if he *can* play the 
point effectively?  It's very tempting to give him enough time to see if 
that could be the case.

> If that trade happens; Potapenko and Roshown McLeod to NY for Harrington
> and Mark Jackson.

Hmmm.  If the first scenario occurs, though, we're looking at Battie, 
Miller and Othella Harrington as the new Troika.  That's not so bad, but 
Harrington's out of position at the pivot.  Miller's intriguing, but is he 
all that much better than V?

The other flies in the ointment of this suggestion are that I'm not sure 
why any team would want MacLeod, unless there's a salary cap reason I'm 
unaware of.  And Mark Jackson is the starting PG for the Knicks -- they're 
looking at Ward and Eisley if he's moved, right?  That can't make Scott 
Layden very comfortable.  I mean, I would hope for his sake it wouldn't 
anyway.

> From: Michael Gooen <callmebogie@yahoo.com>
>
> More interesting question is whether the Cs should offer Forte, Joe
> Johnson, Palacio and at least one first round pick for Baron Davis.  I
> like that move from an overall talent perspective; my concern is whether
> Davis could thrive on an Antoine and Paul-centric team.

Yeah, that's the crux for me as well.  I think Davis is an example of a 
shoot-first point -- if he's even a point.  Isn't Charlotte using him as a 
2-guard right now next to Wesley?  Davis' closest match in the NBA now is 
maybe a guy like Iverson: not a real point, height notwithstanding, but a 
deadly shooting guard because of his speed.  Makes for a difficult 
defensive match, though (you'd need a point that could guard the opposing 
team's shooting guard, I guess).

> Roster then looks like this:
>
> PG:  Davis/Barkley (Brown)
> SG:  Pierce/Strickland
> SF:  Walker/Williams/McLeod
> PF:  Wallace/McCarty
> C:   Battie/Blount
>
> Or, if pigheaded insistence on keeping Antoine at the 4 remains...

Count on it.  For what it's worth, too, Wallace is not going to appreciate 
having to play center.  (I guess you could force him (must ... resist ... 
temp ... tation ... of ... inserting ... joke ... here ...), but then his 
production would likely falter.)

> To fill in, can then go trawling for free agents like Khalid El-Amin,
> Michael (Providence) Smith, or even our old friend Chris Carr.

I'd like to take this opportunity to channel JB and agree with you.  
El-Amin (or a player of his ilk) would be necessary in this scenario.

> Fun to think about 4 All-Stars in the starting
> lineup, though, isn't it?

Actually, yeah.

Bird